tv [untitled] January 17, 2015 4:30pm-5:01pm PST
are very, very important part so i believe that there might be the perception it might be bias because of hedge fund any candidates would say where why are you including someone and someone he will that as a inessential is reputation. >> it is also i want to say for the record i asked for the score from the executive director and it was denied i wanted to mention that 3ub8 i want to ask pc a void the perception so that's it. >> is there a second to the motion. >> motion device if no second chair. >> i'll move we accept staffs
recommendation. >> is there a second questions. >> does the motion include the site visits okay second. >> on site due diligence which i building is a new part of the process. >> and reference checking. >> i ask we accept staffs represents. >> is there a second. >> second. >> i'll vote against i for the reasons i've stated. >> when we come up with the four would you walk me through 1 through 6 and see where they fit in the scoring. >> we kaunt can't. >> well, we have in the past. >> in a public meeting.
>> yes. it was shared that they were very close or that the cut off point came because there's a gig eir big differential that's how we arrived before so i'd like staff to giving me some type of cardboard how we came up with 4 that's not a magic number in the rfp that helped so is he craft a figure of 4 how did we arrive at that. >> i'll turn to ms. porter. >> the more information that's disclosed obviously the fact that the next steps of the evaluation process there's no hard legal rule around this this is a matter of bits judgment for staff on what can disclosed without potentially compromising
the process if there's a general answer i could give that's within our ability to do so. >> commissioners and just to add to the discretion 80 took away - we're the commission we're the final arbitrate and oversight of everything maybe the discretion should come our way. >> the work policy has death e delegated the authority over this delegation to staff i'd like absent an allegations of an unfair process obviously the retirement board has full discretion whether 9 process was complete and fair i'll say that answering whether the four were lumped together close or a clear break out might be general
enough for a discussions rather than - and we coup with 4 we should know how that came up if staff were saying we want the top 2 when i don't know how many players i get that but 4 we think that's prudent whatever you think i'm not taking our power away from you running that shop i have to be able to defend how e you arrived there. >> can i make - >> you're asking a process question to understand your reference to get them to explain the process as we can talk about the past we are going to focus on the questions i just want to know how we arrived at four if that's a magic number because
not knowing a number of four i think it's fair to show how arrived at the number. >> i can try to help you understand our process some factors that went into recommending those 4 one was certainly the size of their staff okay. >> the depth and breath of their resources the quality and the breath depth of their investment research the expansiveness of their allocation and ideas did robustness on feedback he regarding our existing managers staff turnover the whether or not they have their own in house
manager research database, their own individual research or off the shelf programs whether or not they have third party monitoring in item or things are in house that led us that their 3 firms that are quite large okay and there are 3 on that are on the smaller size ongoing there's a clear differentiation of 3 that have well over 40 and two of them have a lot less in our recommendation we want to evaluate whether or not we would benefit from the resources of a much for robust firm with much
deeper resources compared 0 our incumbent. >> in that process how did the magic four come up. >> there were 3 that are very robust and they're very deep and broad they have many sets of i'd say many subject they've included white papers on multiple multiple people in risk management risk allocation and research and white papers again the so there are 3 that are clearly quite large. >> is it fair to read into that that the 3 are substantially better in score. >> there is a difference between the 3 in terms of their
results and has to do with the factors i've adu lutd to again, i can't say named but things like turnover okay whether or not ownership, experience of the lead consultant and second consultant and others on the staff etc. so there is a difference between the four but we're not at a place to declare that those that have a higher score based on what we reading on paper that there is clearly one or two we're focusing on >> duo would you be kind enough. >> maybe i can ask jay or kate why whether or not that's
acceptable. >> then could you walk me through and the commission how that punches on the other end with the scorecard i get the asset allocations but we have 6 buckets to come up with the score tell me how that review falls into the scorecards and the separation with some number of 4 maybe 3 or 2 i haven't reviewed the rfps. >> the rfp sets out different sort of general categories with regards to evacuates criteria and i'll be resistant to go into the sub cargos on the scoring eric mar there's a potential
that may allow the proposers in the next steps of the process to tailor how they present themselves or respond to staff or make the playing field not fair. >> are you sharing with us there's a lot of charts versus the cargos everyone i've seen has a category with no subsequent sections. >> i haven't seen the scoring eric mar but certainly certain questions go to certain categories of the process so clearly to the properlyers they're able to scombrauft how they're responding in the process in a way that gives them an advantage over the other
propers. >> i'm asking any specific question on any bidder i'm asking the staff what they did and how they did it everyone is trying to wheel in how we release information about those bidders versus understanding the process. >> i understand you can ask the questions so staff can answer we're not trying to help propers in a way that advantages them over the 09 propers. >> question about the front. >> you can tell me if you cannot or can't answer this. >> i see you're waiting percentages and you use those to determine who got in on the top 4 with each percentage did you
then allocate a number one or two or. >> we didn't range them 19 or 6 we gave them a percentage of the 25. >> okay. i then write them 25 down and each one ranges and you put them altogether okay. >> on those that i know them all it looks like there are 3 with a very big beverage big staff and then it looks like one has less than 75 people i took the small group and picked one or you discussed they were going in because a because their itself existing consultant and they were not thrown in because
they're the existing consultant they have a track record for serving over 20 years and have result in they engagement and awarded points for that fact. >> okay. okay. just because i have known each one of the firms i have to say one of the advantages that i see and i've seen at the board is there a beverage if they have over 2 hundred people and need a lot of staff on issues it is different than people that don't have that in my experience i've seen other boards let them go not wanting to hire this internally so have a large staff and cam brazen can probably comment image that's the way i am viewing those 3 i'm
fine with it if you want to move harder ahead with a motion i believe that staff has a criteria and you bring them and we can go and understand that not just here but read the rfps that i'm comfortable with looking at those. >> i have a couple of comments seeing none, public comment is closed. >> just want to talk about profits first, i want to echo how you score those i ask the questions you get the comparability it's easy for the numbers but for the objective active ones that's a challengescleritis do you use a
are you ableer when r e b ic. >> what do you mean. >> i will ask you what i mean. >> it's a standard way of grading objective active kinds of questions for may a master students i ask them about the criteria if they earn a or b or c they want to see this in advance they want to see the grading process in advance i publish my recurringers and how you earn a c what additional things you need to earn a d or an a that's called a recurring eagle e earrings it's a master level class in terms of doing that for a teacher it's absolutely prepared. >> is that enough of an explanation. >> i'll say yes would you?
i would agree with yes >> i look forward to seeing which this is done. >> great seeing none no other comments all in favor, say i. of the motion. >> thank you, everybody call item 67 please. >> (inaudible). >> thank you. we're going to wait for anna from angeles investment to join us here in a moment this is a simple recommend change in the number of security and a rational often that anna will walk us through that. >> thanks bill. >> a q r as a long standing manager their quantify active in
nature they've revised their process from using 4 on mirsz down to a global on miles an hour this is a lower need for holder if you think about it as you republic through the models of the categories you are going to get a global defying indication so the only change there they're asking for to move the bottom in the holder down to one hundred 50 this gives their model a flexibility when i look at the bottom into 4 hundred down to 4 stro their anticipation the expected holder will be from the high 3 hundred to 125.
>> thank you very much i'm here for questions. >> questions by the commission? mrvl and mr. melberger >> for the contributes to return he go by the sector and selection this should effect the number or maybe they've got trouble i'm trying to fought how to effects the performance remember the one page that's a timing initial will it effect that. >> i would expect a modified tracking error and i'll answer your question the tracking area is targeted to be 45 periods of time then they very a return target in line with that they expect their tackling to be in that range but got up a little bit the utility environment is
hard to track and the tracking error on the lower end that exit terms they don't expect the changes in the ratio they feel the change p will modest there actually shares that's in the measure in terms of characterizing the excess returned i don't believe i don't think it's a dramatic it is a better way to engineer their that time for the stocking consultant about 40 percent of they're overall model and the shock selections that's the part with where the global option and thirty percent a current fee think of it as 60 percent of the overall model is not changed. >> my definition from 3 to one
hundred and 50 it's an unconcentrated portfolio the thing they show you a test up there their process improvement that helps. >> i know they've been looking at this for 180 months they haven't shown us a back feed they were extended over 6 month period it also, they don't expect it to go down to one hundred 50 by mid 3 hundred they want to give themselves room so they don't have to be constrained or come back but in reality it is more not range of 250 to three or four hundred not down to rhetorical 50. >> can you repeat that thirty periods of time. >> thirty percent current and thirty periods of time country selection and 40 percentage.
>> this is my first recollection of the manager asking to decrease the number of stocks do you have any recollection of that happening before you you know for anyone i have no recollection of anyable manyable asking to decrease the stock. >> i mean this is such a large number of stock you want to be contained. >> which companies. >> not here but i say firlz that my career i've seen firms wanting to concentrate. >> it caught my eye usually they want more my first recollection of decreasing stock a couple of things first of all, on page exhibit b this will be part 3 general guidelines this is on page 2 general guidelines
all the investment by the manager one of the things i want to draw your attention you want to know if it's intentional in the cross ousted version the transacts will be exude on the best price of the sf beshldz or beneficiaries i did not see the word sole but the best execution for the benefit of sf so is that an error. >> that's the template we've added to the score outlines i can't give - >> commissioner i don't know specifically about the changes i can tell you that the i m a has the best execution so we're conforming this to the language of the f m a.
>> i'll vote in favor just the wording sole is a big word. >> i'm happy to look at it if you want the board to approve it with the responsibility and the council to add sole back florida that's determined to be an improvement that maybe american people option. >> thank you. >> other questions. >> are we going to take a vote. >> in the board still has questions. >> i do want to disclose my firm does but with a q r in the retail area i have no interests in my firm will i be excluded from the vote. >> no always the disclosure.
>> itself the vote and are you custodial not just the vote. >> it's definitely the vote i wouldn't participate in the discussions there's no recall necessary here. >> i have a couple of questions. >> first if this a-2 r driven. >> yes. >> second mr. shaw you indicated their holding for a high 3 hundred 3 and a quarter will that make them compliant they have a 4 to 6. >> thank you for the correction that would be my error. >> the 325 to high 3 hundreds is where a they'll go in the next 6 months if f this was approved and we told them that
within the 6 months they'll get to a tight range over the 6 months you'll see it. >> the chair will entertain a motion. >> i'll move we adapt to change the guidelines of a kwshlgs r and look at the word sole. >> second that. >> questions discussion seeing none is communication on item 6. >> david williams i have a question on page 9 where the it is updated and the list of tobacco companies that are prohibited i'm assuming on page 6 the language that means after 90 days of discovering that investments i'm noticing a number of names on both lists is that resolving over the name to
update or as opposed to devesting them. >> we'll get back to you with an answer this is not a q and a unfortunately for public comment. >> thank you. >> it was list in the guidelines i put it in there. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed infers. >> i. >> passes unanimously thank you call item 7. >> and commissioners if 24 is a review of our private entity portfolio and in our team from cambridge will provide an overview to the
board. >> thank you, bill good afternoon, commissioners our long-standing private entity does well, we're unfortunate fortunate it to have folks here to represent the park please note they'll discuss an update on our portfolio and also the market and i will circle up with a separately to discuss the strategies if you have questions. >> i'm sorry in addition you good afternoon commissioners happy new year at cambridge we've worked on the private entity and we'll take today it
continually talk about where the system is today in terms of the private program and discuss the outcome in terms of the near term opportunities in 2015 as well as hit some of the market dynamic in the overall private equity market please feel free to be interactive and ask questions during our presentation we have materials in your packet if i can ask you to turn to page 2 i'll admit some of the highlights on page 2 human resources in terms of performs the performance private equity on a basis has been strong since the - a strong contributor to our overall pool
2014 was a productive year over $900 million from the system just for private equity excluding energy private investment that compares about $340 million from the year prior in terms of number relationships our system added 9 new constrained managers and we under wrote 11 existing relationships definitely in terms of the the xoifl relationships we're back to the underwriting and through that an evaluation of some we passed on or the system passed on in terms of allocation the private equity system remains under the 16 percent of our equity is if we remove the energy private investments that
are anticipated to be transferred to 9 program that actually drops down the private percentage to 11 percentage and there are several reasons for this two of the main be ones that's been a robust of robust market you've got distributions and they've paid our capital calls in the last 5 years but with strong entity and strong flying public market is that resulted in the determinant of a pool value of close to $20 billion a new peak value the fundraising market we've heard is very, very competitive and the strong managers are typically over prescribed it's been important